Law students learn from Michael Cohen hearing in courtroom style debate

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The Michael Cohen hearing was must see T.V. at Golden Gate University Law School in San Francisco, where courtroom style debate is a given. But for these students the unfolding drama was more than entertainment. Law School Dean, Antony Nedwiecki, says it offers valuable lessons that could pay off in the courtroom.

"And these are perfect examples of real life situations of dealing with clients and a client's credibility," observes Niedwiecki.

He says bringing in documents like the President's canceled check is a classic tactic to bolster a witness's credibility. While having an interrogator like Republican Jim Jordan hammering away at Cohen's past lies like a district attorney, was designed to accomplish the opposite.

"And so you know, you develop this rhythm in order to again, attack the credibility," he adds.

So, who landed the most effective blows, in the battle to cast Cohen as either a reformed hero, or untrustworthy villain?

"The republican congressmen did everything they could to call Cohen's credibility into question and I personally believe they succeeded. Another law student might disagree with me," said law student, Caleb Bery.

"From my point of view he was almost credible, which was surprising," countered fellow student Kassy Schuenke.

"Near the last part that I saw, they were bringing up his family and kids, about what they're going through," said Katarina Kretz, a law student.

Sylvia Chairez, also a law student said, "Earlier they said he lied to benefit his earnings, his personal earnings, and that just makes him seem like a selfish person."

"They made everything about attacking the credibility of the person and not the evidence," said Raneen Al-Sayegh, another law student at Golden Gate University.

But in this case, instead of twelve jurors, there were millions, glued to television sets across the country. And it may take some time to gauge the verdict on today's hearings, in the court of public opinion.